^•\£D S7~4 v
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	15-P-0276
'i Office of Inspector General	Septembers 2015
mZ!
At a Glance
¦ VIV *
^4 PrO^
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review of
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Pollution Prevention (P2) grant
activities to determine how the
EPA has ensured pollution
prevention goals are achieved
through P2 grants.
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 authorizes the EPA to
award grants to states and
tribes. The intent of this effort is
to encourage businesses to
adopt environmental strategies
and solutions that significantly
reduce or eliminate waste and
result in cost savings and
improved pollution controls.
The EPA has awarded over
$122 million in P2 grants in the
last 26 years. P2 results by
grantees are reported to, and
adjusted by, EPA regions and
headquarters before their
release to the public. P2 grant
results are used to substantiate
EPA performance on several
Government Performance and
Results Act goals.
This report addresses the
following EPA goal or
cross-agency strategy:
• Ensuring the safety of
chemicals and preventing
pollution.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2015/
20150904-15-P-0276.pdf
EPA Needs Accurate Data on Results of Pollution
Prevention Grants to Maintain Program Integrity and
Measure Effectiveness of Grants
What We Found
The EPA is unable to determine the extent to
which P2 grants achieved pollution prevention
goals. Neither headquarters nor the regions we
reviewed consistently implemented EPA quality
control guidance and practices when compiling
P2 grant results. In addition, we found reporting
and transcription errors. Because of the lack of
controls to ensure that results are reported
accurately and consistently, we found that:
Inaccurate reporting of
results misrepresents the
impacts of pollution
prevention activities
provided to the public, and
misinforms EPA
management on the
effectiveness of its
investment in the program.
•	Due to errors and inconsistent regional reporting, EPA headquarters
significantly modified results reported by the grantees to EPA regions. For
example, in our sample year of fiscal year 2011, the regions reported over
$200 million saved by incorporating pollution prevention practices. We found
headquarters reduced this amount of dollars saved by businesses by
58 percent. EPA headquarters revised initial results again 2 years later.
•	Errors in the reporting of grants results occurred. For example, one region
reported 17,000 gallons of water saved to headquarters instead of the
17,000,000 gallons actually reported by the grantee.
•	Reporting guidance was not applied consistently. For example, reported
fiscal year 2011 results associated with one state P2 leadership program
were reported at 10 percent, whereas in the following fiscal year the results
from the same activities were reported at 40 percent.
Inconsistent and arbitrary application of the measurement guidance hampers the
agency's ability to accurately report reliable grant program results. This creates a
risk for the integrity and value of the EPA's reported P2 achievements and
weakens confidence that the agency's pollution prevention goals have been
achieved.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention: (1) implement the P2 GrantsPlus database to begin the
process for enhancing the reporting and recording of its P2 grants, and
(2) develop and implement controls to ensure accurate reporting of regional
results to headquarters and documentation of revisions made by headquarters.
The EPA agreed with our recommendations and proposed acceptable corrective
actions. All recommendations are resolved and no further response from the
agency is needed.

-------